Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
IMJack

One God or two?

Recommended Posts

Scientist said:

Well you can't really blame people for wanting to be a christian. Science and ratio do not bring inner peace like christianity.
example 1:
Science tells us that we have the same ancestor as apes. Wouldn't you feel much happier if you could believe that you were created in the image of the almighty? It brings more inner peace.
Christianity is a much more happier way of life.
example 2:
Let say (god forbid) your mother came to demise. Science and ratio would tell you that she is dead and you'll never meet her again. Christians however we tell you that you will meet your mother again in a perfect paradise and will be together for eternity in the presence of the loving Father.
Christianity puts your mind at rest and lets you live in peace with yourself. If you are able to be a christian you will probably be happier than rational people. Can we really blame people for wanting to be happy?
I've also tried being a christian (first 16 years of my life) and also for me it didn't work out. I quess I must find some other way to reach happiness.

Hmmphff, I don't care if I descend from an ape or not - apes are advanced animals you know.

Share this post


Link to post
dsm said:

Hmmphff, I don't care if I descend from an ape or not - apes are advanced animals you know.


Well, I know apes are advanced animals and personally I don't mind having the same ancestor as an ape. It's just that there are people that do not like this notion. I just wanted to explain why people might feel drawn towards christianity. This does not mean I agree with them. Explaining is not the same as agreeing. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Back to the main topic (the dualism-christianity thing)

Look how Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition) defines religion:

"any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."

Webster's definition implies that there are two important components to the religion: one's belief and worship in a deity or deities one's ethical behavior towards other persons

This dual nature of christianity is expressed clearly in the New Testament in Matthew 22:36-39:

"Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

So christian religion is indeed dualistic.
OK, so it is not dualistic in the way IMJack asked it to be but I thought I'd mention is anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Never said that I disagreed with your views - just pointed out that I don't mind being a descendant of an ape AND indicating that I find that people who don't like that notion are a bunch o' whiners who don't respect animals.
:-)

Share this post


Link to post

Respect? Animals? Haha, show me one that has invented something, painted something or contributed anything other than food and I will respect it :)
Ahhh I see it now

Share this post


Link to post

You associate the word 'respect' with 'someone-being-your-hero' a bit too much foddy :-)

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, this thread is going places...

Scientist, two points. One, you regard Christians like they're all a bunch of closed minded, mindless worshipping sheep with zero respect for the sciences. While this is the bunch we most often joke about, it's just one polarized extreme. The vast majority of people are unconsciously moderate on the science-religion issue. It is possible to take a little comfort in faith while working out the mechanics of science. Hell, science leads to its own comforts, look no farther than your computer for evidence of that.

Two, what does your dictionary define 'dualism' as? :)

Share this post


Link to post
dsm said:

You associate the word 'respect' with 'someone-being-your-hero' a bit too much foddy :-)

RESPECT the quality or state of being esteemed: ESTEEM the regard in which one is held; especially : high regard <the esteem we all feel for
Seems right to me

Share this post


Link to post
the_Danarchist said:

Heh. I'm actualy an atheist, but I have this perverse interest in religion. The thing that interests me the most is how someoen could possibly get into the mindset that such stuff they have been taught is real. I mean, I tried to become a Christian once, but I couldn't bring myself to believe any of it, so I gave up.

That might be the only thing me and you have in common. I think people only believe those stories because they need the answere to why they're alive and exist, and just can't cope with the fact there's no real reason other than to reproduce and keep humans alive. Then again I see no reason to; after all, all we do is destroy things, people, other creatures that caused us no harm, and resources. Like the guy in the matrix said, we're just a virus that uses it's surroundings till they are dead, spread to new ones to destroy them, and multiply to make the process faster. Sad but True.

Share this post


Link to post
fodders said:

RESPECT the quality or state of being esteemed: ESTEEM the regard in which one is held; especially : high regard <the esteem we all feel for
Seems right to me

What I meant by "respecting" animals is to accept them as beings equal to ourselves (in a way they are equal to us - just because they can't talk and can't build structures, doesn't mean that they're worth less than us) - those who see themselves as "built in God's own image" automatically think that they are better than animals - one thing which I cannot abide about them as humans are clearly just as "pathetic" as animals, seeing as humans kill each other on a daily basis.

Animals have lots of natural enemies and they're constantly at danger of being killed and eaten - humans don't have any other natural enemies than other humans - but humans sure do kill eachother a lot.

The fact that humans are among the most dangerous known animals on the Earth further increases my disgust towards these people (if God really did create man in his own image then he must have meant that the human being is less primitive than other animals - well we ARE pretty damn primitive in some aspects so I could never agree on that).

Share this post


Link to post
dsm said:

Never said that I disagreed with your views - just pointed out that I don't mind being a descendant of an ape AND indicating that I find that people who don't like that notion are a bunch o' whiners who don't respect animals.
:-)

Glad we agree

IMJ said:
[...] you regard Christians like they're all a bunch of closed minded, mindless worshipping sheep with zero respect for the sciences.[...][/B]

Well I wouldn't quite put it like that. Let me explain:
All the knowledge we as mankind possess did not come to us instantly. It came to us by ways of succession. On this path to true knowledge we are exposed to wanderings. When in this way of succession we built on these wanderings we are bount to make mistakes.

"It is the succession of complacent, solid convictions and it's acceptence that cause people to make mistakes."
-René Descartes

Christianity on itself is all right to me. But when scientific conclusions are based on religious assumptions made in the past then I do think mistakes will be made.

Share this post


Link to post
fodders said:

God gave us DOMINION over all other animals

Maybe, but our so-called "dominion" over animals is only because of our ability to imagine things and shape our imagination into real things. Ex. an artist isn't worth shit if he hasn't got the ability to imagine a picture he/she wants to draw/paint, same thing with an architect.

And let me remind you that we don't dominate virii and bacteria - they are the most dangerous known animals and all we can do is to find cures to some of the deceases these critters bring along - but for each decease we "kill" about ten others will come into being.

No, humans are just animals like all the other beings on this planet, advanced animals perhaps, but animals nonetheless and one day, we'll become extinct - just like the dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Scientist said:

As a biologist I would like to point out that a virus is not an animal, nor are bacteria. :P

Then what are they?
I was always told that life forms = animals.
I'd like to hear your definition of the word 'animal'.

[edit]Here's my definition of the word 'animal':

(this is something I had to translate so there might be possible errors within) animal, Living organism, which is unable to build up organic material from non-organic compunds, but has to nuture itself from organic materials built up from plants. There is no clear line between plants and animals. Certain one-cell organisms stand between animals and plants.


My question is: Are virii and bacteria among these 'one-cell organism' which stand between animals and plants?[/edit]

Share this post


Link to post

Virus:any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants

Share this post


Link to post
dsm said:

Then what are they?
I was always told that life forms = animals.

That's pure madness! Go burn down your school! THEY'RE LYING!

dsm said:

I'd like to hear your definition of the word 'animal'.

[edit]Here's my definition of the word 'animal':

(this is something I had to translate so there might be possible errors within) animal, Living organism, which is unable to build up organic material from non-organic compunds, but has to nuture itself from organic materials built up from plants. There is no clear line between plants and animals. Certain one-cell organisms stand between animals and plants.

My question is: Are virii and bacteria among these 'one-cell organism' which stand between animals and plants?[/edit]

I hate to tell you this but those are old definitions. Forget them. Biologist now divide organisms using modern (DNA-)technics. These technics give a more phylogeneticly correct picture.
Thus they have been able to constructe the relationship between living organisms.
The result is the so-called Tree of life:
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life&contgroup=&dynnodemd=

Life:
-eubacteria [true bacteria]
-eukaryotes (eu = true, karyote = nuclei) [protists, plants, Fungi, animals, etc]
-archaea [methanogens, Halophiles, Sulfolobus, and relatives]

-viruses?

We see that viruses are separated from all the other forms of life. This is because viruses have no true cells (building blocks of life) they’re just pieces of DNA or RNA surrounded by proteins. Scientists even question if viruses can be considered living organisms.

Also we see bacteria is a specific group of life forms. They are not part of the same group as the eukaryotes [protists, plants, fungi and animals]. This is because bacteria have no true cell nuclei. Eukaryotes: organisms with cells that possess true nuclei.

The Eukaryotes further can be separated as you can see here:
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Eukaryotes&contgroup=Life&dynnodeid=2494

Difference between animals and plants:
The three major ones are that plant cells have chloroplasts, a cell wall and a vacuole, whereas animal cells do not, and that cells from higher plants (flowering plants) do not have centrioles.

Fungi:
As the sister group of animals and part of the eukaryotic crown group that radiated about a billion years ago, the fungi constitute an independent group equal in rank to that of plants and animals. They share with animals the ability to export hydrolytic enzymes that break down biopolymers, which can be absorbed for nutrition. Rather than requiring a stomach to accomplish digestion, fungi live in their own food supply and simply grow into new food as the local environment becomes nutrient depleted.

I can give you a better definition of Fungi but I’ll have to look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
The boy we all love so much said:

I can give you a better definition of Fungi but I’ll have to look it up.

Fungi is the collection of:
Eukaryotes that do not fotosynthesise and can can only form limited types of vegative structures.
These forms are:
-Thallus (=plasmodium)
-Mycelium
-Yeast

Well I hoped that makes any sense to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Scientist said:

I hate to tell you this but those are old definitions. Forget them. Biologist now divide organisms using modern (DNA-)technics. These technics give a more phylogeneticly correct picture.

Yeah, yeah, that's what they always say whenever they come up with a new theory: "This theory is more correct than previous theories"

All right congrats, you've managed to convince me that virii and bacteria are not animals (I am after all no scientist, unlike like you), but back to my main point (and before I know it, someone probably convinces me that I'm wrong again): Humans are animals. Why? Because they're mammals and function similar to other animals in many fundamental ways (among other things, we need to eat, drink and shit/piss - dunno if all animals need to sleep but most do)

Share this post


Link to post

STOP SPELLING EVERYTHING THAT STARTS PH WITH AN F! photosynthesize, don't make me come up there!

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry man, english is a foreign language to me! In dutch the word is "fotosynthetiseerd" (with an F) you see. Mistakes like this are easily made. You shouldn't bother about spelling so much. We're not participating these threads because we're perfect you know! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Yet another example of English speaking people forgetting that their language ain't "the world's easiest language".

Share this post


Link to post
the_Danarchist said:

And its Phungi, damn you!

Well, in Biology we use the latin word Fungi (with an F).

Share this post


Link to post

I was just kidding, you pfool.

On that note, words that start with 'pf' are kind interesting. Let's see how many I can remember from German class:

pferd
pflantze
pfund
pfennig

Heh...the hard part is pronouncing them right.

Share this post


Link to post
the_Danarchist said:

pferd
pflantze
pfund
pfennig

Heh...the hard part is pronouncing them right.

That's easy compared to trying to pronounce 'ein bisschen' correctly - no, it's not pronounced "bees-jen" (and the double 's' is spelled with that funny German "B" symbol - I dunno how to write it on this forum).

Share this post


Link to post
IMJack said:

Scientist, two points. One, you regard Christians like they're all a bunch of closed minded, mindless worshipping sheep with zero respect for the sciences.

heh, wow, you summorized what I once wrote 2 pages about perfectly into one sentance. /me claps.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×